3 ms·

It is on my todo list to undo this port That has always been my reason for not giving a Cython a real chance. I'm afraid I would go through the trouble portin

It is on my todo list to undo this port That has always been my reason for not giving a Cython a real chance. I'm afraid I would go through the trouble porting everything, then have a use case where I need to just run pure python. I've considered having a compat layer where you import dummy versions of all the classes and decorators if cython isn't present. Has anyone ever tried that?

uryga 8y ago
I don't know about your question, but Cython recently added [1] the option to use native Python type annotations (Python 3.6, PEP 484) instead of its previous C-like dialect. That could lead to a situation where a sensibly type-annotated Cython file can still be a valid Python file – that would help with portability. [1] https://github.com/cython/cython/issues/1672#issuecomment-330821277 https://github.com/cython/cython/issues/1672#issuecomment-33...
- acemarke 8y ago
  Cython also supports writing type annotations in a separate .pxd file. It's a bit awkward because you're effectively duplicating all function + variable declarations, but it _is_ a valid way to keep the original Python source intact. (On a side note, using this feature led to a particularly memorable debugging session that set a personal record in terms of time spent vs amount of code changed to fix the issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11115110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11115110 ).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bratao 8y ago
Yeah, using Cython feel dirty because of that. I miss the opportunity to step into during debug and have to use workarounds to do profiling.
maxerickson 8y ago
There's a built in pattern that is at least similar to what you describe: https://cython.readthedocs.io/en/latest/src/tutorial/pure.html#augmenting-pxd https://cython.readthedocs.io/en/latest/src/tutorial/pure.ht... In the standard library, they maintain both Python and C versions of some modules: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0399/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0399/

uryga 8y ago

I don't know about your question, but Cython recently added [1] the option to use native Python type annotations (Python 3.6, PEP 484) instead of its previous C-like dialect. That could lead to a situation where a sensibly type-annotated Cython file can still be a valid Python file – that would help with portability. [1] https://github.com/cython/cython/issues/1672#issuecomment-330821277 https://github.com/cython/cython/issues/1672#issuecomment-33...

acemarke 8y ago
Cython also supports writing type annotations in a separate .pxd file. It's a bit awkward because you're effectively duplicating all function + variable declarations, but it _is_ a valid way to keep the original Python source intact. (On a side note, using this feature led to a particularly memorable debugging session that set a personal record in terms of time spent vs amount of code changed to fix the issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11115110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11115110 ).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

bratao 8y ago

Yeah, using Cython feel dirty because of that. I miss the opportunity to step into during debug and have to use workarounds to do profiling.

maxerickson 8y ago

There's a built in pattern that is at least similar to what you describe: https://cython.readthedocs.io/en/latest/src/tutorial/pure.html#augmenting-pxd https://cython.readthedocs.io/en/latest/src/tutorial/pure.ht... In the standard library, they maintain both Python and C versions of some modules: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0399/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0399/